Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!

Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Print what tires were on the car during the test, that way no one is uninformed. If a BRZ owner wants them, the dealer can order and install anything for the owner prior to pickup.

Even if they list which tires were used, how is a customer supposed to know that this is not what it comes with from the factory? If you look up the specs on Lincolns website, the tires aren't mentioned anywhere:

Like I said, if they quote the results against the 911 and say 'when equipped with XXX tires' I have no issues.

But not disclosing that, then they are selling a lie

Exactly. And they tried to do it in a slick way, with Edmunds or whichever company reporting the figures, so it doesn't fall on Lincoln, except they got caught sending a ringer with such obvious changes.

On the other hand, note that Michelin flew the writers to Dubai and had them do hot laps in Porsches and Audis. Everyone has their price, and I suspect that this royal treatment is above most peoples' threshold for being bought.

That article is bloody awful. It's like MT put their own byline on a Michelin press release. You may not be able to buy positive press in MT, but you can apparently rent it cheap!

These are the statements I don't get. The wool over their eyes? The label on the tires is staring them in the face when they walk up to the car.

But it's not as if every publication is expected to look at every piece of equipment on the car to make sure it is an OEM product. To quote Shawshank Redemption, "Really, how often do you look at a man's shoes?" Additionally, publications go by the spec sheet provided to them by the manufacturer, which clearly did not list the tires that aren't even factory options at this point. That is the shady part. It's obviously something that you can detect visually, but they're not exactly "staring them in the face" and certainly not the first thing you inspect.

I'm sure that if you look at a lot of tests done on cars with factory upgrades, they get the specs AND the price of those upgrades supplied from the manufacturer so they can cite that information in their review. Certainly the price isn't something that the tester is supposed to figure out on their own too. That's supposed to come from the manufacturer as well.

But it's not as if every publication is expected to look at every piece of equipment on the car to make sure it is an OEM product. To quote Shawshank Redemption, "Really, how often do you look at a man's shoes?" Additionally, publications go by the spec sheet provided to them by the manufacturer, which clearly did not list the tires that aren't even factory options at this point. That is the shady part. It's obviously something that you can detect visually, but they're not exactly "staring them in the face" and certainly not the first thing you inspect.

I'm sure that if you look at a lot of tests done on cars with factory upgrades, they get the specs AND the price of those upgrades supplied from the manufacturer so they can cite that information in their review. Certainly the price isn't something that the tester is supposed to figure out on their own too. That's supposed to come from the manufacturer as well.

This. Thanks, DEEEEEEZNUUUUUUUUUTS!

*ahem* Rex, the phrase "pull the wool over their eyes" is synonymous which deception. Yes, the reviewer can walk up to a car and clearly see the tires. But if an automaker sends a publication a car for review with equipment that's not representative of the consumer product, one can deduce deception. Hence "trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the reviewers and the public". Has nothing to do with how well the reviewer can see the brand/model on the tire, really.

*ahem* Rex, the phrase "pull the wool over their eyes" is synonymous which deception. Yes, the reviewer can walk up to a car and clearly see the tires. But if an automaker sends a publication a car for review with equipment that's not representative of the consumer product, one can deduce deception. Hence "trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the reviewers and the public". Has nothing to do with how well the reviewer can see the brand/model on the tire, really.

^ This. And furthermore, if the reviewers were to assume that the test car is representative of the end consumer product (which they should be able to assume), then they could report "All Lincoln MKZs come with Pilot Super Sports", which would be as factually incorrect as the handling numbers that are a result of using said tires.

*ahem* Rex, the phrase "pull the wool over their eyes" is synonymous which deception. Yes, the reviewer can walk up to a car and clearly see the tires. But if an automaker sends a publication a car for review with equipment that's not representative of the consumer product, one can deduce deception. Hence "trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the reviewers and the public". Has nothing to do with how well the reviewer can see the brand/model on the tire, really.

*ahem* I'm well aware of the phrase. The bolded part is not what you said, so don't put it in quotes. You said "pull the wool over their eyes". In the context of your post, that appeared to mean the testers' eyes. Nothing was pulled over their eyes, they are the one's who have the clear view of the tires. If by "their" you meant the public, fine.

But again, in context, you were writing about how Edmonds was mad at Lincoln for 'having the wool pulled over their eyes".

My point was, IMHO, I just don't see how something in plain view, not lied about, is "deceptive" to the reviewer.

Horrible quote. It's commonly known that shoes are one of the first things people notice about someone.

It was an analogy. But with cars, tires are among the last things I judge when looking at a car, unless you think a car is awesome because it has Michelin Pilots then later adjust your opinion when you realize that they're installed on a Pinto.

My point was, IMHO, I just don't see how something in plain view, not lied about, is "deceptive" to the reviewer.

It wouldn't be deceptive if Lincoln had pointed out to the reviewers that the press cars have tires that are not available from the factory. But they chose not to do that.

Instead they installed the tires, and it took a phone call to the manufacturer to find out that they are not even available as an option. Lincoln went out of their way to alter the press cars, and instead of mentioning the modifications, they forced reviewers to investigate on their own.

The lack of disclosure is what tells me they were trying to pull a fast one.

It wouldn't be deceptive if Lincoln had pointed out to the reviewers that the press cars have tires that are not available from the factory. But they chose not to do that.

Instead they installed the tires, and it took a phone call to the manufacturer to find out that they are not even available as an option. Lincoln went out of their way to alter the press cars, and instead of mentioning the modifications, they forced reviewers to investigate on their own.

The lack of disclosure is what tells me they were trying to pull a fast one.

Exactly,

You're reviewing a luxury car, performance tires are only a concern when they drown out the cabin on the highway.

It wouldn't be deceptive if Lincoln had pointed out to the reviewers that the press cars have tires that are not available from the factory. But they chose not to do that.

Instead they installed the tires, and it took a phone call to the manufacturer to find out that they are not even available as an option. Lincoln went out of their way to alter the press cars, and instead of mentioning the modifications, they forced reviewers to investigate on their own.

The lack of disclosure is what tells me they were trying to pull a fast one.

^ALL this. Hence, they "tried to pull the wool over the reviewers' eyes" as well.